DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 231 552 PS 013 774

AUTHOR Yawkey, Thomas D.TITLE Pretend Play and Language Growth in Young

Children.SPONS AGENCY Department of Education, Washington, DC.; Margaret M.

Patton Foundation, Kittanning, Pa.; PennsylvaniaState Univ., University Park. Div. of Curriculum andInstruction.; Spencer Foundation, Chicago, Ill.

PUB DATE 83

NOTE 25p.

PUB TYPE Guides Classroom Use Guides (For Teachers) (052)

-- Reports Descriptive (141)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Beginning Reading; Dramatic Play; Early Childhood

Education; *Language AcquiSition; Models;*Ob-servation; Perspective Taking; *Pretend Play; Role

Playing; *Teaching Methods; Verbal Communication;

*Young ChildrenIDENTIFIERS Constructivism

;

ABSTRACTPretend play and language growth are related through

representational thought. Fundament41 to representational thought are

five connectives, at the theoretical level, which link pretend play

and language growth: motor actions, roles and role changes, creative

expression, concentration, and decentration. At the research level,

results of selected studies show not only that pretend play andlanguage growth are associated but also that pretend play in dramatic

and sociodramatic forms can assist oral and written communication.Aspects of pretend play crucial to sociodramatic play and growth in

language ability are: make-believe with objects, make-believe withsituations and actions, imitative role play, and play episodes'involving interaction and verbal communication. Based on theory and

research, an instructional model has been developed for promoting

language growth through sociodramatic play. The model containsobservation and language development components. For use withpreschool-aged children, the key elements of the observation

component are observing children's sociodramatic experiences,interviewing children, and transcribing the interview. Building on

completed transcriptions, the language development component for

children in primary grades uses children's real language, actualvocabulary, and speech patterns to develop beginning reading skills.

(Guidelines for implementboth components of the model are

provided.) (RH)

Reproductions,supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.*

*

**

***********************************************************************,I.

***********************************************************************

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

nATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONEDUCATIONAL RESOuRcES INFORMATION

CENTER IERIc)Xlavs document has been reproduced iS

received from the person or organaattonOnginong itKnot changes have been made to rmprovereproduchon (pretty

pornts of loess, or optmons stated rn thts docksment do not necessa ray represent offtc0 MEPosthon Or 130!Cy

PRETEND PLAY AND LANGUAGE GROWTH IN YOUNG CHILDREN

1

Thomas D. Yawkey, Ph.D.,

The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

Introduction 1

Relationships Between Pretend Play and Language 2

Theoretical Connectives 2

Selected Research Studies 6

Pretend Play Actions 9

Make-Believe With Objects 10

Make-Believe With Actions and Situations. . 10

Imitative Role-Play 12

Role-Play 13

Developing Language Through Sociodramatic Play in Centerand Classroom Programs for Young Children 14

06servation Component 14

Language Development Component 17

Summary and Conclusion 18

References 20

1 The author's research and writing on constructivist play, cognition

and communication in young children is supported, in part, by grants from

the United States Department of Education, Margaret M. Patton and Spencer

Foundations, and the Research and Development Division of The EconomyCompany Educational Publishers and the Penn State's Division of Curriculum

and Instruction, Professor Fred H. Wood, Head. He gratefully acknowledges

and appreciates their support and assistance and the ideas expressed

represent his and not those of the funding agencies.

Thomas D. Yawkey, Ph.D.Early Childhood FacultyThe Pennsylvania State University159 Chambers BuildingUniversity Park, Pennsylvania 16802

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

r4.

Citrommi

2

Pretend Play and Language Growth in Young Children

introduction

The. chapter focuses on pretend play and communication and their uses in

programs with young children. More specificaily, it examines similarities between

pretend play and communication and identifies the contributions of pretend play and

language growth for research and practical perspectives. Based on connections between

pretend play and language growth at theoretical and research levels an instructional

model is described using sociodramatic play for development of communication--both

oral and written.

Previous considerations of pretend play and language differ from current thinking.

Prior to the I960s, pretend play on one hand was seen largely as compensatory

activities that relieved children's tension, and anxiety and pent-up emotions and

contributed to healthy ego development (Erikson, 1963; Frank, Hartley & Goldenson,

1954). On the other hand, language was explained us the child's appropriate modeling

of language used by the adult. Learning a language rested on the children's making

successive approximations of adult's responses (Skinner, 1959). Excellent reviews of

previous perspectives of pretend -play are found in Ellis (1973) and Neuman (1971);

thorough views of language learning are explicated in McNeil (1966), Chomsky (1965)

and Skinner (1959). Yawkey and Miller (1983) summarize those positions prior to the

1960s by noting that the behaviorist maturationist, and nativist perspectives made

little to no mention of the role of environmental content in acquiring (or using) pretend

play and language.

Arising in the mid-I960's, the constructivist perspective stresses that pretend play

and language develop and can best be studied in social interactional settings (Fein, 1981;

Piaget, 1962). The constructivist position emphasizes the experiential history of the

child which is cognitive in origin and development and the supportive environment in

which play and language evolve and can be studied. Pretend play and language become

functions of both the child and the social environmental setting; the youngster exerts

influences on the environment and in turn becomes influenced by it. From a

r t

constructivist's point of view, "on-going" pretend play in social context is one of the

richest settings for studying and aiding children's growth and use of language (Fein, .1981;

Nicolich, 1981). From a constructivist perspective, pretend play is defined as the

cognitive capaci4les of youngsters to use "as if" thought structures (Sarbin, 1966) to

transform themselves into other people, objects or situations as observed in their motor

and/or verbal actions (Curry & Arnaud, 1974). The relationships between children's play

and growth and use of language in social context receive support from and can be

viewed on a number of levels: (a) theoretical connectives, (b) results of research

studies and, (c) pretend play actions.

Relationships Between Pretend Play and Language

The relations between children's pretend play and language rest with'

constructivist principles drawn from Piaget's theory of cognitive development, results

of research studies and delineation of pretend play actions.

Theoretical Connectives

Pretend play and its potential language growth of young children is virtually an

untapped reservoir for study (Caplan & Caplan, 1973; Neuman, 1971). Researchers such

as Freyberg (1973), Nicolich (1975), Pederson and Wender (1968), Pellegrini (1981), Pulaski

(1973), Yawkey (1981) and Silvern, Williamson and Waters (1983) are suggesting that

pretend play provides the opportunity for cognitive and language development. The

assumption of a connection between pretend play and language rest, historically on the

theoretical ideas of. Bruner (1972), Vygotsy (1967) and Piaget (19962) which show that

pretend play is related to and a necessary ingredient of cognitive development. The

development of pretend play, like thinking evolves from birth and continues across the

life span (Piaget, 1962).

Pretend play develops around age two with the onset of language and continues to

ages 11 or 12 with rule-governed play increasing in importance. The core component

2

between pretend play and language is representational thought - i.e., the cognitive

capacity to construct mental elements that stand for raw perceptions and actions and

the capacity to manipulate these elements according to coherent and fundamental

logical principles (Fein; 1978, Piaget, 1962). Theoreticians such as Fein (1978) and

Nicolich (1975) have explained the relation of.mental representation to pretend play and

language in a number of ways. First, youngsters identify, define, and assign roles in

their pretend which require motor actions. These motor actions provide feedback in

social content and link motor, cognitive and verbal elements to reality (Bruner, 1972;

Piaget, 1962). This motor feedback becomes an integral part of learning concepts and

may even symbolize them (Saltz, Dixon & Johnson, 1977).

Using motor actions in pretend play, the youngster becomes the chief actor,

observ.er, and participator. In thematic episodes, such as "Visiting the post Office,"

"Playing Dinosaurs" or "Nighttime," the youngsters observe and use motor actions and

express their ideas. The relationships between pretend play, thought and verb& and

nonverbal communication rest on motor actions and are the key to mental-

representation.

Second, the youngsters in pretend play are immersed in a sea of words and roles

which relate their social behaviors to their activities. Through these imaginatZve roles

youngsters imitate and create novel actions from those that they have observed in the

adult world. Watching what teachers, parents and other significant adults and peers do

and say, children use and practice routines, patterns and social language. Gaining

mastery over the world of social ideas, pretend play utilizes the child's experiences,

knowledge, and vocabulary that enables him to develop and expand his own role. In

addition, children learn to use, and express empathy, sharing,, helping, and other

abilRies underlying social competence. Showing empathy, caring, helping and

aggression in socially accepted ways, youngsters through pretend play begin to

understand the relationship between "feelings" and "actions." As youngsters continue

I

t

f

r

role development and and role changes, the patterns and routines of their responses to

individuals and events would also change (Yawkey, 1983; Saltz et al., 1977). As a result

of role development and role changes, more complex patterns and routines of

responding evolve relative to the role and context.

The third link between pretend play and language through mental representation is

creative expression (Smilansky, 1968). Pretend play helps children to create novel

statements and actions. Many of these novel statements and actions have no known

models or direct antecedents (Piaget, 1962). Creative expression emerges from the

demands of the dialogue end situatiull in pretend play. Relying on and generalizing

from en experiential base, children develop and practice creative expression. The gap

between the experiential base and the demands of the role is filled by novel statements,

actions, and activities. For instance, when Margaret and Beatrice use blocks "as if"

they are wild horses and pretend with them, they are relying on their creative thoughts

and expressions to bridge this gap between experience and role demands.

The fo u. th link between pretend play and language is concentration (Smilansky,

1968). This link focuses on the youngster's attention to objects, situations, people, and

actions used in pretend play. Pretend play strengthens concentration as youngster's

communicate and demonstrate their enactments. The actors must focus and

concentrate in order to pick up on one another's cues and prompts emitted in the play

episode. They pick up on and extend each other's actions. And, their powers of

concentration and attention increase.

Related to the fourth is the fifth link, decentering. Pretend play fosters

decentering. Decentering is the ability to perceive, understand and consider

simuRaneously the varied or multiple aspects of objects, events and situations (Fenson

& Ramsay, 1980). Through pretend play, youngsters shift their conceptual schemata

between symbolically transformed and immediately present stimuli. This conceptual

shifting of cognitive schemata provides distance from or a break between stimuli in the

4

environment and is the foundation for mental representation and cognitive operativity

(Piaget, 1971; 1962).

The links between imagining, thinking, and communicating not only underlie but

also stress the importance of pretend play used as a vetlicle for developing language and

cognitive learning. By working with young children in school and home settings in

pretend play, their abilities in using and practicing communication, and creative

expression develop and increase. Accordingh , pretend play in dramatic and

sociodramatic forms is a potent tool for working with youngsters in school and home

settings. Sociodramatic and dramatic play, as forms of imaginative activities are

natural and spontaneous. Coupled with adult guidance, then are useful for fostering

language and cognitive learning in young children.

Dramatic and sociodramatic play are easily differentiated from one another.

Both are forms of pretend or imaginative play. In dramatic and sociodr,amatic play, the

child takes on a role of another person, object, or situation, and pretends to be the

"other." In both dramatic and sociodramatic play, the youngster initiates, models and

creates actions and expressions in that role with the help of play objects. in dramatic

play, however, the child does the imitating, modeling and creating by himself and

without other individuals involved in the imaginative episode. Solitary play is a form

of dramatic play where two children are sitting and playing side by side. When their

play episodes are independent of one another and if they communicate, the interactions

between these youngsters are at low levels. They do not meaningfully pick up on each

other's cues and prompts and essentially their entire dialogue or parts of it are

unrelated to the ongoing episode. In sociodramatic play, two or more children act as a

social group. They interact with one another in a meaningful way and act and react to

and pick up on one another's prompts. The theme of the episode becomes a uni`arif one

that develops and evolves betwen players. Their play becomes more elaborated and,

detailed and the members, in this form of pretend play, cooperate in a meaningful way.

5

In sociodramatic play, there is easily recognizable beginning, mid and ending points.

There is also mutual planning among group members.

With the focus of sociodramatic play on social collaboration or involvement

between individuals, the youngsters begin to see their relationships to others as

reciprocal rather than unindimensional. Here, youngsters see themselves and the

environment around them from other perspectives. Piaget (1962) feels that the

reciprocal quality of sociodramatic play enables youngsters to coordinate internal

relationships derived from being able to view situations, actions, and people from

differing perspectives. The more the youngsters become involved in sociodramatic

play, the more they re-order, re-orient, and re-adjust, their mental models of their

physical and social worlds. With the social collaborative aspects of sociodramatic play,

the youngster re-orders his mental models of his environments more in line with the

conceptual nature and use of verbal and nonverbal language. In addition, this quality of

social collaborative in sociodramatic play permits the development of perspective

taking (Burns & Brainerd, 1979). Meaningful social interaction in sociodramatic play

requires the ability to see relationships between others as reciprocal.

The five connectives described above provide a rationale for mental

representation which links together pretend play and language. Based on the

connectives, the results of selected research studies show the significance of pretend

play and language and indicate that pretend play may aid the growth and learning of

expression-both oral and written.

Selected Research Studies

The results of selected research studies, such as, Smilansky (1968), Saltz and

Johnson (1974), Saltz, Dixon and Johnson (1977), Silvern, Williamson and Waters (1983)

and Yawkey (1981; 198) define further the relation between pretend play in dramatic

and sociodramatic forms and show the significance of pretend play in aiding language,

communication and cognitive growth in young children.

6

Smilansky (1968) compared the effects of sociodramatic play of 140 children, ages

three to six, from low, middle and high income populations on language abilities in

young children. In this classic study, Smilansky using adult tutors, trained children from

.low socioeconomic populations on sociodramatic play behaviors reflective of youngsters

from higlier income populations. After 67 hours of training, the results indicated that

children from lower income populations improved in pretend play and language

behaviors characteristic of youngsters from higher incoMe levels. In particular, these

children showed significant increases in mean frequencies of words used in sentences,

contextural words and nonrepeated words as compared to baseline language samples

recorded prior to training.

In a similar way, Saltz and Johnson (1974) and Saltz, Dixon and Johnson (1977)

explored the effects of group sociodramatic (i.e., enacHng previous real experiences)

and fantasy play (i.e., role-playing fairy tales) and control treatments. Over a

successive three year training period, the effects of gioup pretend play were observed

on preschool children's cognitive and language abilities and impulse control. The

consistent results show that training in fantasy play using adult tutors lead to increases

in intellectual performances as measured by standard IQ tests for children scoring

above 80 IQ prior to training, in cognitive abilities to distinguish reality from fantasy on

the Taylor pictorial test, in delaying impulsive behavior and in showing empathy with

others. These effects of group fantasy play were superior to those of sociodrarnatic

play as well as the control treatments across the three years.

Silvern, Williamson and Waters (1983) examined the effects of sociodramatic play

(and other conditions) as mediators of listening comprehension. Randomly assigning

five year old children to one of five groups (i.e., control, play, puppet, picture and

repetition-control), they were read stories and given particular procedures specific to

their condition: They were individually assessed on listening comprehensin tasks. The

results showed that the picture condition produced the highest absolute scores.

1

7

However, sociodramatic play condition yielded the greatest gr6C;ih in listening

comprehension.

Yawkey (1981) explored the use of sociodramatic play on reading readiness

behaviors and adult ratings of playfulness in five year old children. Playfulness is

defined as the cognitive use of familiar play objects, and ideas in nonstandard or

divergent ways (Lieberman, 1977; 1965). Rather than focusing on sociodramatic play,

this study examined dramatic play. The dramatic play in the experimental group and

the free-play activities in the control group lasted 15 minutes per day across seven

consecutive months of the school year. The youngsters were administered pre and post

tests of reading readiness and were scored for playfulness in pre and post sessions. The

results shows that children in dramatic play groups performed signifiCantly better than

those in control groups in both reading-readiness and adult-observed playfulness

capacitites. And, the children who had the lowest pre-test scores in reading readiness

received the most benefit from adult-guided dramatic play episodes.

Finally, Yawkey (1983) examined sociodramatic play effects and gender

differences on five year old children's mathematical, reading-readiness, imaginative and

adult-rated playfulness abilities. The children in the sociodramatic defined, assigned

and carried out roles dealing with common experiences such as: (a) "Feeding the

Animals" based on field-trips to the zoo arid, (b) "Going Shopping" derived from visits Ito

shopping malls and supermarkets. In the sociodramatic groups, each of the episodes

were exPerienced first by the children before they enacted them through group play. In

the comparison condition, children in small groups of four and five colored-in drawings,

made sketches of objects, pasted pictures on construction paper and fingerpainted. Pre

and post tests were administered in mathematics, reading-readiness and imaginative

abilities; for playfulness abilities the youngsters vireireObserved and rated by adults in

pre and post sessions. The results showed that sociodramatic play (relative to

comparison treatments) aided significantly the five year old's performance in

8

i

1

I,

mathematics, reading readiness, imaginativeness and playfulness. Girls yielded

significantly higher scores than boys on reading readiness and imaginativeness. Finally,

girls in the sociodramatic play group yielded significantly more imaginative actions

than boys in the comparison group.

The results of these selected research studies show that pretend play in individual

and group _settings can aid young children's growth of language and communication-

related capacities. The results of these studies focusing on pretend play and language

are in agreement with those of Feitelson and Ross (1973) reporting increases for

originality, Smith and Syddall (1978) reporting increases for group cooperation and

Burns and Brainerd (1979) for cognitive perspective-taking with pretend play turoting.

Pretend Play Actions

The results of research studies of Srnilansky (1968), Saltz, Dixon and Johnson

(1977), Silvern, Williamson and Waters (1983), Yawkey (1983) and others support

relationships between pretend play and language growth and attempt to support the

potential of pretend play for aiding forms of expression--both oral and written.

Although the connections between pretend play and language rest on mental

representations which have already been described, the selected studies provide further

insight into pretend play actions used for language development. These pretend play

actions develop and nurture mental representations that occur in the make-believe

enactments. Across dramatic, fantasy and sociodramatic enactments, these selected

studies identify several differing types of pretend play actions:

(a) make-believe in regard to objects describe motor movements and verbal

statements which are substituted for toys and instructured materials

(b) make-believe with actions and situtations describe when verbal descriptions

which become substitutes for actions and situations

(c) imitative role play is where youngsters undertake make-believe roles and

express them 'in imitative actions and/or verbal statements

9

set

10

L

(d) interaction and verbal communication describe at least two youngsters

interacting in imaginative play

(e) role play is when youngsters remain with a single role or related incident for

a period of time

Each of the pretend play actions is described in the following paragraphs.

Make Believe With Ob'ect1,. This pretend action defines the various types of play

objects found in the environment and used in play encounters. The four categories of

toys listed in ascending order of complexity and abstraction are: (a) real objects, (b)

toys, (c) instructional materials and, (d) constructional tangibles (Yawkey, 1981).

Briefly, real objects have a spe-ial identity and pariicular purpose for use in the,

environment. Real objects include household furniture and utensils, sand, water, food,

clothing and others. Second, toy objects are actual miniature replicas or reproductions

of real objects. Though scaled down in size, toys retain the same identity and function.

of their full-sized and real counterparts. Examples of toys are trucks, cars, baby

carriages, model airplanes and many others. Third, instructional materials are objects

which are specifically designed to teach concepts, skills or relationships and sequencing

skills of largest to smallest and smallest to largest. Materials fOund in Montessori

schools are this type and variety. Fourth, constructional materials have no specific

identity or function. They are useful in building and making other objects. Examples of

these multipurpose materials are blocks, art and other constructional objects. These

four types of play objects are extremely important for they essentially set the scope

and content for the youngster's play episodes.

Make-Believe With Actions and Situatf n . The actions subcomponent identifies

the things children can make or perform in the play settings. As such, there are foul-

main types of pretend actions which may be observed during the imaginative play

episode. These actions, identified in ascending order of complexity and abstraction are:

(a) explorative, (b) repetitive, (c) rep. licatite and,. (d) transformtive (Neumann, 1971).,

They can be physical movements of the body or they may be mental thought in

operation.

Explorative actions are the most concrete operations the child experiences.

These actions show random investigation by manipulating and grasping. For example, a

child handles a new toy in many possible ways. Through this process, the youngster

categorizes the new information from the toy into his experiential background. The

repetitive actions substantiate the gathered information by repeated testing. For

example, the child manipulates a new toy for a period of time. By manipulating, the

youngster is then able to conclude that the toy is much like other toys he has played

with in the bath tub. Because of these similarities and functions, the youngster

identifies it as a toy boat. Replicative actions are actions used to simulate reality by

reconstructing it. Here, the child identifies and uses the object in such a way that it

corresponds to its identity and function in reality. For example, the child, concludes

that the new toy is a boat. He pushes R in the water, makes huge waves in the bath tub

and sinks it. Transformative actions extend the gkills and information learned by the

child through symbolic or creative uses of objects, subjects, or the self (Neumann,

1971). During this action, the child may change the toy boat into a race car. He in

turn, moves it along the kitchen floor. The youngster may use a soup box obtained from

the supermarket "as if" it is a "horse" and may pretend that he is riding it through the

forest covered valley.

The situations subcomponent identifies the type of pretend play observed during

the episde. The play forms are dramatic or sociodramatic and were described earlier

and in detail in this chapter. Briefly, however, the youngster in dramatic play takes on

the role of and pretends to be another person. The role-taking of that other person

includes imitati n with the additinal use of real or imagined objects and subjects. The

child's talk and expressions during play serve as substitutes in the pretend Play

sequence. For example, the child, pretending to be a fireman putting out a fire

13

imitates the movements of: (a) riding on the back of the fire truck, (b) jumping off and

aiming the hose toward the burning building and, (c) pulling the lever on the nozzle to

let the water spray out. The child expands the play by wearing a real or imagined fire

hat and coat. Verbal statements also enhance the imitation as the child talks like a

fireman. He may exclaim, "That fire is really blazing!" and "I must save the mother!"

Briefly, and in sociodramatic play, there is more than one child involved and both

elaborate on the theme in a cooperative manner. The youngsters, in turn, interact with

each other using motor movements and verbal statements. Unlike the egocentric

imitation and verbalization of dramatic play, the imitation and verbalization are much

richer and more developed and elaborate. They begin to imitate adult talk as well as

substitute speech for objects, actions, and situations. Speech serves an additional

function in sociodramatic play. Planning by defining, assigning, and elaborating roles is

done cooperatively before and during the play episode. For example, several children

join the child who is pretending to be a fireman. They decide that one child should

drive the truck, another should hold on to the hook and ladder, and a third should ride on

the back of the truck. When the children reach the fire, they change plans a bit when a

youngster says, "We don't need two people to-pull the hose! You go and hook up the

other end of the hose to the fire hydrant. We can use the chair as the fire hydrant."

Sociodramatic and dramatic play provides opportunities to interrelate both situations

and actions.

Imitative Role-Play. The youngster tries-on a pretend role individually or in

groups and makes statements to indicate that role. In this :nstance, the change or

transformation through forms of play shows that the players are different persons or

objects other than themselves. Through verbal statements and/or motor movements the

children demonstrate their imitative role-play. The youngster may imitate Superman.

On, in a group situation, the children define roles in modeling: "I am Aunt Veronica,

you be Uncle Joe, and the doll is our baby!" With motoric movements, the child may

12

show that he is using a ruler "as if" it is an ax by making chopping movements with it.

Youngsters may make motoric movements to pantomime the walking actions of several

animals in their portrayal of the imaginative episode, "At the Zoo!" By using these

movements and verbalizations, children show imitations of people, objects or situations

that are being role played. They show the adult that the child is undertaking an

imitative role play. From the observation, the role or roles the child is assuming can be

identified in that imaginative play episode.

Interaction and Verbal Communication. Referring to a group setting of at least

two (or more) players, interaction and verbal communication form the framework of the

play episode. Since this pretend play action requires two or more people, the children

ore engaged in sociodramatic play. Here, verbal interactions related to the episode and

themes transpire. Through this verbal interaction and communication, the planning,

development and follow-through of the children in pretend play can be observed.

aole:-.1212/. Role-play differs from the role-taking. Role-taking as described hY

Shantz (1975) refers to a group of cognitive processes necessary to take the perspective

of another person. As defined by Mead (1934), role-playing involves putting oneself in

the place of another, understanding another's role attributes, thoughts, and feelings.

Role-taking is central to role-playing and pretend-play. Role-taking refers to covert

cognitive actions used in assuming the perspective of another. Role-playing is actually

taking on role attributes of another and acting overtly as the role demands. In role-

play, children show symbolic elaboration of the role by the way they choose to show

their conception of it. Highly correlated with cognitive development, it reflects

children's intellectual growth through their perceptions of .the roles and modes of

enacting them. In role play, the youngsters also integrate emotion and thought. This

integration proceeds from showing emotional and social behavior to increasing use of

words and symbolic representation. Finally, the child must be able to hold and show his

role for a period of time. This element of role play provides the youngster with the

opportunity of assimilating and practicing the role.

13

15

In summary, the relationship between pretend play and language shows not only

that they hme a simHar cognitive base and several commop theoretical connectives but

also that pretend play can aid language growth as shown by the results of selected

research studies. In addition, these selected research stOdies describe and show the

specific types and kinds of pretend play actions that ate basic to make-believe

enactments.

Developing Language Through Sociodramatic Play in Center

and Classroom Programs for Young Children

It is apparent through results of research studies (e.g., Saltz et al., 1977) and the

theoretical connecfives between pretend play and cognition and language developed by

Piaget (1962) and Vygots'ky (1967) that individual and group forms of play can aid the

growth of communication--both oral and written. In the research studies of Yawkey.

(1983) and Yawkey and Yawkey (1983), an instructional model was developed and tested.

It uses sociodramatic play for language growth. Also, the instructional model takes

into consideration the pretend play actions of make-believe with regard to., objects,

situations, and actions, imitative role play, interaction and communication and role

playing. The instructional model using sociodramatic play for language growth is

composed of two components: observation and language (Yawkey & Yawkey, 1983;

Yawkey & Blohm, 1977). For young children, ages 2/3 to 5, the observation Component

only should be used. For older children 6 to 8 who are ready cognitively for rather

specific reading and language instruction, the observation and language components of

this instructional model can be used. Each component is described in the following

sections.

Observation Component

The observation component of the instructional model furnishes the "grist" for

language growth. The key elements or guidelines of the observation component are

14

16

observing the children's sociodramatic experiences, interviewing them, and transcribing

the interview. Explanations for using each of these guidelines follow.

For the first guideline called "observing" the adult observes the Children carefully

in their sociodramatic play. Notes can be made in written or mental form. In a role-

play context, the types of pretend play actians used by the children are noted: (a)

make-believe in regard to objects, (b) make-believe in regard to situations and actions,

(c) imitative role play and, (d) interaction and verbal communication. Watching for and

noting each of these pretend actions prepares the adult to guide the youngsters through

interviewing and transcribing phases.

For example in observing for the pretend action, imitative role play, children

change their personal identities. These changes are seen in the youngster's use of

verbal declarations and motor movements. Some examples of imitative role play are: "I

am the Daddy! You will be the Mommy! The doll is our baby!" Observing for make-

believe in regard to objects focuses on substituting verbal statements and body

movements for real objects. In the substitution process, the basic natural identity of

real objects change. And, these changes are observed in verbal declarations, actions, or

movements made by the child. For instance, a four year old says, "I am sawing a log".

Neither the saw nor log are present and hand and arm movements are substitutes for

these objects. The child's hand and its movements in this example magically change

into a saw and saw movements. Watching for make-believe in regard to actions and

situations shows whether or not verbal descriptions become substitutes for actions and

situations. In substituting actions, for example, a kindergarten or primary grade child

may say, "Let's pretend I have already returned from work. I cooked the food. Now, I

am setting the table." Here, the first two statements made by the child are substitutes

for actions and only the last action, "setting the table" is actually completed. In

substituting situations, for instance, the child mai say, "Let's pretend that this is a

hopsital and children are recovering from their illnesses." The substitute situations in

k

15

-these examples are the nurse for the doctor and the children in the hospital. In

observing for interaction and verbal communication, the youngsters define, assign, and

-carry out roles and provide verbal and nonverbal cues to one another in th ir

sociodramatic play. For example, children say, "Let's play 'Visiting the Supermarket . I

will be the clerk, you will play the customer. Let me play the child!" This

communication serves as prompts to initiate (and others to end) the sociodramatic play.

By carefully watching the children in their sociodramatic play, the types of pretend

actions form the basis for the remaining two guidelines in this component.

1The second guideline in the observation component of this instructional model is

"interviewing!" After the episode, children are encouraged to tell what they said and

what actions and movements they made. This procedure enhances language geowth and

at that same time aides memory. Throughout the interview, how well the child uses

logical sequencing and coherency should be noted. Sequencing and coherency are

fundamental characteristics of pretend play, and vital skills in language growth.

Examples of sequencing are occurrences in the play episode with event following event

following event. Coherency means the understandings of the play episode as beginning,

mid-point, and ending.

The final guideline in the observation component is "transcribing." As the

children describe the play episode, their statements are written on a large lined sheet

of paper or chalkboard. The sentences are printed in large legible form and written

exactly as the children dictate them. Special care is taken to insure that every child

who participates in the pretend play provides at least one sentence for dictation. The

young child ages 2/3 to 5, sees that oral disclosure can be written and symbolized and

associates sounds with their print-symbol forms. The completed transcription can be

read by the adult as desired by the children. As the transcription is completed for the

older child, 6 to 8, the second component of this instructional model begins. This

coMponent focuses on language development.

16

Language Development Component

In this component, the real language, actual vocabulary, and speech patterns of

the children generated in pretend play are used for developing beginning reading. The,

key elements or guidelines of this component are reading, reviewing and retyping the

transcript for permanency. Explanations for each of the guidelines follow.

After completing the transcribing, the "reading" guideline is used. The episode is

read aloud to the children -- in a group setting -- to help them again understand main

ideas and subsequent details (Yawkey & Blohm, 1977). The children see that the

sentences they "said" can be read. The adult slides a marker (e.g., hand or index card)

under each word or phrase in the story as it is read. Pausing after each word and

phrase, facilitates sentence patterns, intontion, structure words, and changes in word

form (Yawkey & Blohm, 1977). Left to right patterning and return sweep of the eyes

from line to line is reinforced. Children also note capital and lower case letters.

Next, the children read the episode together. Mispronounced words are corrected

and omissions are supplied on an as-needed-only basis. Oral reading fluency is enhanced

by this initial group reading. In addition, group strengths and weaknesses are diagnosed

informally and skill development activities are provided in an incidental fashion. The

key is "incidental" since skills are only introduced where appropriate and needed. For

example, visual discrimination of shapes, letters, and words, understandihgs of word

families, rhyming, inflectional endings, literal and inferential comprehension and other

concepts may be taught to the whole group or an individual child as an on-going part of

language. Follow-up group activities, such as coloring, writing, and cutting letter

shapes help to reinforce learning and skill development. At the end of the group

reading session, each child identifies words in the story which he recognizes without

help. They are printed on cards and become the child's "known words." They are used

as needed for individual review.

The nex-t guideline is "reviewing." The episode is reviewed individually, with the

child. For example, words are selected from the child's "known word" list and word

17

19

recognition is checked. The child then can practice the episode by himself and develop

oral fluency Yawkey & Yawkey, 1983). As opportunities present themselves, the skills

and concepts are practiced (e.g., beginning and ending sounds, vowels, digraphs,

accents, syllabication, comprehension, and others). As another individual follow-up

activity, the child builds new tentences out of the word cards drawn from the episode.

The final guideline is "retyping." The transcription of the sociodramatic play .is

typed and mimeographed. Edch chi ldin the group is given a copy of the episode. These

copies may be circulated among other children so that they 'may read each other's

episodes. Copies of the transcribed episode can be given to the child's parents and

placed on a bulletin board for display. With the completion of the language

development component, other sociodramatic episodes can be used in the same fashion

to begin and develop language growth in young children.

Summary and Conclusion

From a constructivist perspective, pretend play and language growth are related

through representational thought--i.e., the intellectual capacity to construct mental

elements that stand for raw perceptions and actions and the capacity to manipulate

these elements according to coherent and logical principles. Fundamental to

representational thought are five connectives at the theoretical level which link

together pretend play and language growth: motor actions, roles and role changes,

creative expression, concentration and decentration. At the research level, results of

selected studies (e.g., Saltz et al., 1977; Srnilansky, 1968) show not only that pretend

play and language growth are associated but also that pretend play in dramatic and

sociodramatic form can assist communication--both oral and written. Finally the

pretend play actions crucial to sociodramatic play and growth in language are: make-

believe with objects, situations and actions role play, imitative role play and interaction

and verbal communication.

18

2o

5,upported at theoretical and research levels, an instructional model that uses

sociodramatic play for growth of language was developed, and explained. It contains

two major components--observation and language development. The former component

is used with young children age 2/3 to 5 and both components can be employed with

youngsters 6 to 8 who are ready for more formal language instruction. The observation

component contains three guidelines: observing, interviewing and transcribing. For the

language development component, the elements are reading, reviewing, and retyping.

There are several benefits of this instructional model. First, it provides a

pri3ctical model that can be easily used in center and classroom programs. Second, the

model provides guidelines for observing the youngsters in sociodramatic play and

working with them for language growth. Third this model uses natural real-life

experiences that originate with the children for learning rather than experiences

contributed by the adult. Fourth, the model harnesses the characteristics of sequence

(i.e., one event following another in sequential order) and coherence (i.e., the elements

of the episode forming a logical whole with story beginnings, the body, aid the ending).

These charactenstics are fundamental to sociodramatic play and language episodes.

Finally, this instructional model employs group settings for language development.

19

REFERENCES

American Psychologist, 1972,Bruner, J. The nature and uses of immaturity.

27 (36), 687-708.

Effects of constructive and dramatic playBurns, C. M. & Brainerd, C. J.

in perspective taking in very young children. Developmental Psychology,

1979. 15 (5), 512-523.

Garden City, New York: Doubleday,Caplan, F. & Caplan, T. The power of play.

1973.

Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Chomsky, N. Aspects of the theory of syntax.

Press, 1965.*

Cognitive implications in children's spontaneousCurry, N. & Arnaud, S.

13 (6), 173-179.role play. Theory Into Practice, lPlt,

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall,Ellis, M. J. Why people play.

1973.

New York: Norton, 1963.Erikson, E. H. Childhood and society.

Unpublished manuscript,Fein, G. G. Play and the acquisition of symbols.

The Merrill-Palmer Institute, 1978, p, 1-41.

Stimulation or evocation. In R. LernerFein, G. G.. The physical environment:

Individuals as producers of theirand M. Busch-Rossnagel (Eds.),

Academic Press, 1981.development. New York:

Human Development,Feitelson, D. & Ross, G. S. The neglected factor--play.

1973, 16., 202-223.

Decentration and integration of the child's playFenson, L. & Ramsay, D.

Child Development, 1980, 51, 171-178.in the second year.

Understanding children's play. NewFrank, L. Hartley, R. & Goldenson, R.

York: Teacher's College Press, 1954.

disadvantagedFreyberg, J. T. Increasing the imaginative play or urban

In J. L. Singer (Ed.),kindergarten children through systematic training.

Academic Press, 1973.The child's world of make-believe. New York:

20

22

Garvey, C. Play. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1977.

Griffing, P. Sociodramatic play among young black children. Theory Into

Practice, 1974, 13, 257-66.

Lieberman, J. N. Playfulness and divergent thinking: An investigation of

their relationship at the kindergarten level. Journal of Genetic Psychology,

1965, 107 (88), 219-224.

Lieberman, J. N. flayfulness: Its relation to imagination and creativity.

New York: Academic Press, 1977.

McNeil, D. Developmental psycholinguistics. In F. Smith & C. Miller (Eds.),

The genesis of language. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1966.

Neuman, E. The elements of play. New York: MSS Corporation, 1971.

Nicolich, L. A longitudinal study of representational play in relation to

spontaneous imitation and development of multiword utterances, ERIC,

103-133, 1975.

Nicolich, L. Early pretend games and potential parallels with language.

Child Development, 1981, 52, 785-797.

Pederson, F. A. & Wender, P.H. Early social correlates of cognitive functioning

in six-year-old boys. Child Development, 1968, 39, 185-193.

Pellegrini, A. D. The use of a sequenced questioning paradigm to facilitate

assoc.iative fluency in preschoolers, Journal of Applied Developmental

Psyc olo , 1981, in press.

Piaget, J. Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton,

1962.

Piaget, J. Piaget's theory. In P.H. Mussen (ed.), Carmichael's manual of

child sychology, (Vol. 1). New York: Wiley, 1970.

Pulaski, M. A. Toys and imaginative play. In J. L. Singer, (Ed.), The

,child's world of make-believe. New York: Academic Press, 1973.

21

Saltz, E., Dixon, D., & Johnson, D. Training disadvantaged preschoolers on

various fantasy activities: Effects on cognitive functioning and4

impulse control. Child Development, 1974, 48 (26), 367-380.

Saltz, E. & Johnson, J. lraining for thematic-fantasy play in culturally

disadvantaged children: Preliminary results. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 1974, 66, 623-630.

Sarbin, T. R. Role enactment. In B. J. Biddle & F. J. Thomas (Ed.). Role

theory: Concepts and research. New York: Wiley, 1971.

Shantz, C. The development of social cognition. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.),

Review of Child Development Research (Vol. 5). Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1975.

Silvern, S. B., Williamson, P. A. & Waters, B. Play as a mediator of compre-

hension: An alternative to play training. Educational Research Quarterly,

1983, 1(3), 16-21.

Singer, J. The child's world of make-believe. New York: Academic Press,

1973.

Skinner, B. F. Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft, 1957,

Smilansky, S. The effects of sociodra,latic play on disadvantaged preschool

children. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1968.

Smith, P. K. & Sydall, S. Play and non-play tutoring in preschool children:

Is it play or t.toring which matters? British Journal of Educational

Psychologx, 1978, 48, 315-325.

Vygotsky, L. S. Play and its role in the mental development of the child.

Soviet Psychology, 1967, 5, 6-18.

Yawkey, T. D. Effects of social relationships curricula and sex differences

on reading and imaginativeness in young children. Alberta Journal of

Educational Research, 1981, 26 (3), 159-168.

egI

22

Yawkey, T. D. Sociodramatic effects and sex differences on selected

cognitive-academic and play-related abilities in five year olds.

Manuscript in review, Contemporary Educaticnal Psychology, 1983.

Yawkey, T. D. & Blohm, P. J. Toward a model on imaginative play: Some

observations. Unpublished rh .script, The Universfty of Wisconsin,

Madison, 1977, p. 1-21.

Yawkey, T. D. & Fox, F. D. Evaluative intervention research in child's

play. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 1981, 4 (3),

40-57.

Yawkey, T. D. & Miller, T. J. The language of social play in young children.

In A. D. Pellegrini & T. D. Yawkey (Eds.), The_growth of oral and

written language for development and applied psycholinguistics. Norwood,

New Jersey: ABLEX Publishing Corporation, 1984, in press.

Yawkey, T. D. & Yawkey, M. L. An investigation of varying types of role

play intervention strategies, school program s'ttings and sex differences

on pretend play and reading readiness measuresI in five year old children.

Research Paper Presented at the American Educa ional Research Association,

Montreal, 1983.

23